Posted on 06/11/2013 4:48:08 AM PDT by iowamark
Civil War buffs have long speculated about how different the war might have been if only the Confederacy had won formal recognition from Britain. But few recognize how close that came to happening — and how much pro-Southern sympathy in Britain was built on a lie...
Early British support for the South was further buttressed by something as mundane as a protective tariff — the Morrill Tariff — approved by Congress on March 2, 1861. This new tariff, passed to protect American infant industries, also unwittingly gave rise to a troublesome myth of mounting trans-Atlantic proportions.
The tariff had been opposed by many Southern legislators, which is why it passed so easily once their states seceded. But this coincidence of timing fed a mistaken inversion of causation among the sympathetic British public – secession allowed the tariff to pass, but many in Britain thought that the tariff had come first, and so incensed the Southern states that they left the union.
Nor was this a simple misunderstanding. Pro-Southern business interests and journalists fed the myth that the war was over trade, not slavery – the better to win over people who might be appalled at siding with slave owners against the forces of abolition...
Why was England so susceptible to this fiction? For one thing, the Union did not immediately declare itself on a crusade for abolition at the war’s outset. Instead, Northern politicians cited vague notions of “union” – which could easily sound like an effort to put a noble gloss on a crass commercial dispute.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
You mean, the liberal media lied about that too?
What you said upstream was "If it were not for the southern colonies during the Revolution, there would have been no United States" which, besides being sorta self-serving, is only partially true. The truth is that all the colonies needed each other if we were to survive.
The issue it underlayed was monetary driven by tariffs.
Not true
That and the fact few people actually owned slaves in the south and Lee and a good number of his generals also did not or had freed them prior to the war. None of this is mythology, it is historic fact.
Not true
“That and the fact few people actually owned slaves in the south and Lee and a good number of his generals also did not or had freed them prior to the war. None of this is mythology, it is historic fact.
Not true”
Actually it is truer than blue. Interestingly, some Northern generals or their families were slave holders FWIW.
Exactly. The North already had an economic leg up on the south in that most industry was located there, so why did they need an added political gift of what amounted to subsidies, called tariffs?
I agree. The whole basis for British involvement in WWII was to knock Germany down a peg. The British never did and never would endure a rival on the open seas.
And here I was thinking those Gamecocks or Palmettos were drinking up a storm.
No wonder old times there weren't forgotten (or remembered very clearly either).
I guess Mouton meant import taxes (tariffs).
Of course, the problem is that Southern exports were high but the tariffs were imposed on imports.
Because of all the activity and circulation of money in the national economy, it wasn't necessarily true that those who got the most money from exports actually paid the most in taxes on imports.
I agree, but then what role did the Republican abolitionists and Lincoln play? Were they useful idiots for the power brokers that wanted to game to continue to be played, or were they a part of the conspiracy?
>> Pro-Southern business interests and journalists fed the myth that the war was over trade, not slavery...
The Civil War was over slavery? Really?
When you believe a race is fit for slavery and nothing else does it matter what you call them?
Touche. I am not willing to absolve the South for slavery, but I am not convinced of the angelic image that has been painted of Lincoln and the North either.
In 1860? Absurd. I don't know if current scruples about the word existed back then, but I'm pretty sure that plenty of Southerners "clumsily tossed the word around."
Depends if you believe “Gone with the Wind” (the book) is truth or propaganda.
LOL! Really? You've still posting from the body of that (keep it under you hat) letter of Madison's without posting the beginning where it says:
A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligation imposed by it.
James Madison to Alexander Rivas, Jan, 1833.
How totally disappointing. I'd thought better of you.
-------
>>Pardon my buttinskiness, Mouton, but this was posted to you, so...FReeper etiquette and all that. :-)
Suffice it to say that the South was, at best, no different than the North in this regard?
You take the prize for the stupidest comment of the day. I learned that particular epithet while living in the south where it was indeed tossed about with reckless abandon.
Kudos
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.